Tenancy Tribunal Ruling on Damages Claims

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 1

[2025] NZTT 5163371

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

ORDER

1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [NAME] and [NAME] $1,129.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Lightbulbs $30.00 Blue pot replacement $400.00 Blind repairs $305.00 Repair of shower head $16.11 HRV pipe repair $351.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,129.11 Bond $1,129.11 $230.89

Reasons:

1 Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Mrs [NAME] stated that she had the authority to represent [NAME] at today’s hearing.

2. The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 2

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

3. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for the tenants’ use. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

4. At the beginning of today’s hearing the tenants accepted that they ought to pay for the replacement lightbulbs – they had intended to have them replaced and had not done so in the rush of moving out of the premises.

5. The cost of the replacement lightbulbs was proven.

6. I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for removing watermarks on the walls. Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean, not perfectly clean. I also note that the tenants had had the premises professionally cleaned when they vacated the premises.

7. One of the more contentious issues at today’s hearing was the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing a blue garden pot which had been broken when [NAME]’s father moved it, and the cost of replacing the nikau palm which had been in the pot when the tenants commenced the tenancy. These are both chattels.

8. I am dismissing the claim for the nikau palm. It is common for plants situated in a pot to die and I do not think the tenants ought to be responsible for replacing it.

9. At today’s hearing the tenants stated that they ought not to have to pay the cost of replacing the blue pot. They stated that they had accepted the pot at the beginning of the tenancy as a favour to the landlords and that it had been broken accidentally by [NAME]’s father.

10. At today’s hearing [NAME] stated that they had used the pot to plant plants after the nikau palm had died. Given that the tenants used the pot they are obliged to have left it at the premises at the end of the tenancy, as provided by s40(1)(e)(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

11. [NAME] stated that her research suggests that tenants do not have to pay compensation for damage that has been caused accidentally, rather than carelessly.

12. However, the Tenancy Tribunal is obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 3

13. In Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154, Justice Walker referred to accidental and careless damage as follows “… accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured’s party’s carelessness or negligence …”. He has linked accidental and careless damage, which in turn indicates that whether the damage is caused accidentally or carelessly, landlords are entitled to compensation from tenants.

14. In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.

15. As stated earlier, I am obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts and so I am satisfied that “careless damage” in the Act encompasses “accidental damage”.

16. Having made this finding that the tenants are responsible for compensating the landlords for the blue pot, I am reducing the $799.00 claimed for the pot to $400.00. I do so because the pot was at least 15 years old and although purportedly of good quality, there was no real evidence as to how long pots such as these should last in tenanted premises. I have estimated it to have had approximately half its useful life.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

17. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

18. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

19. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

20. The landlord makes a claim for the repair of the HRV pipe, repair of three blinds’ cords, and repair of the shower head. I accept that none of these claims were covered by the landlords’ insurer.

https://www.apia.org.nz/apia-blog/pi-ing-dogs-and-a-pot-of-oil-where-we-are-at-with-holler-v-osaki

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 4

21. The tenants say they did not damage the HRV pipe which is located in the attic which is used as a storage area.

22. However, I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of the HRV pipe repair.

23. I say this for reasons that include:

(a) I accept the [NAME]’s evidence that when he serviced the HRV during the tenancy, the pipe was intact; and

(b) The tenants say they stored suitcases/boxes in the attic which they removed at the end of the tenancy; and

(c) I note that the [NAME] stated that it looked like something had been dragged over the pipe causing it to disconnect; and

(d) Logically, given the findings in (a) and (b) above, the pipe was most likely disconnected when items were removed from the storage area by the tenants; and

(e) As in my findings regarding the blue garden pot, whether the pipe was dislocated accidentally or carelessly makes no difference as to whether tenants are liable to pay the cost of repair.

24. The cost of repair was proven by an invoice.

25. With regard to the cost of replacing three blinds’ cords, the tenants say they are willing to pay the cost of replacing the cord for the blind in the lounge, but do not accept responsibility for the broken cord in the ensuite and the jammed cord in the blind in the rumpus room. They say they did not use the blind in the ensuite and that once the cord for the blind in the rumpus room became difficult to use, they stopped using that blind as well.

26. The tenants also say that the blinds are flimsy and that any issue was due to fair wear and tear.

27. I am dismissing the argument that the cords’ issues were due to fair wear and tear. I say this because I accept that the blinds were approximately 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy. More importantly, there were blinds covering all windows of the house and there were no issues recorded with any of the rest of the cords.

28. I find that the tenants are responsible for paying the cost of replacing all three cords. The photos show that the cord in the ensuite was broken and there was no evidence to indicate that it was broken when the tenancy commenced.

29. Further, the landlord had never been notified that the blind in the rumpus room was not flowing freely. Had that been the case there was perhaps an opportunity to remedy the issue of the cord so that it was once again free flowing. As it is, I accept that the cord was jammed at the end of the tenancy,

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 5

that the jamming occurred during the tenancy and that the box and cord required replacement.

30. The cost of remedying the blinds’ issues was proven by an invoice.

31. The tenants also dispute responsibility for repairing the shower head. They say that it was always leaking and that they did not use it because of this.

32. I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of repairing the shower head. I say this largely because I accept that the showerhead was approximately only 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy and the leak occurred because a pipe had come out of the bottom of the shower head. This indicates that more likely than not something must have occurred to the pipe to cause it to come out of the shower head.

33. The cost of repair was proven by an invoice.

Filing fee reimbursement

34. I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the cost of filing this application to the landlords because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim against them.

[NAME]

21 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 6

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163371 7

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: